You are here: Home » News » Politics » Election 2012 » The Fair Elections Now Act

The Fair Elections Now Act

Posted by: Linda Carbonell on May 28, 2011.

05-29-2011 by Linda S. Carbonell

Senator Richard Durbin

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (Illinios) and Congresspersons John Larson (Conn.), Walter Jones (N.C.) and Chellie Pingree (Maine) have re-introduced the Fair Elections Now Act which seeks to open Federal elections to a broader range of candidates and reduce money influences at the Senate and House levels.

The Act (S.750 and H.R.1404) would establish a fund for election costs by imposing a small fee on large government contractors (firms like Halliburton) for the Senate fund and a 10% portion of the revenues received from auctioning off unused broadcast bands for the House fund. Because of advances in television and radio, there may be insufficient interest in an auction of unused broadcast spectrum – those channels that have never been available for private use, ones you won’t find on your car radio to rabbit-eared TV. In that case, an alternative source of funding needs to be discussed. If the program is as popular at the national level as it has proven at the state level, it would cost between $700 million and $850 million per year.

Someone who wants to win a seat in the House of Representatives would have to raise a total of $50,000 from 1,500 contributors limited to $100 each. This would act as a show of legitimacy for a candidate, proof that there are enough constituents prepared to vote for this person. After meeting that goal, the candidate would qualify for up to $900,000 for an election – $360,000 for the primary, and an additional $540,000 for the general election if he/she wins the primary.

The formula for Senate candidates is a bit more complicated because of the wide differences in state populations. A Senate aspirant would need to receive 2,000 contributions plus 500 contributions for each House district in the state. A Vermont candidate, with only one district, would need 2,500 contributions. A Ohio candidate would need 11,000 – 2,000 plus 500 times the 18 districts. A Senate candidate would qualify for $1.25 million plus $250,000 for each district, 40% for the primary and the rest for the general election. In Vermont, $600,000 for the primary and $900,000 for the general election. In Ohio, $2.3 million for the primary, $3.45 million for the general election.

If the candidate raised additional funds, the Fair Elections fund would match $5 for each $100 in contributions. The total funding would be limited to three times the allocation for the primary and another three times the allocation for the general. In Vermont, the candidate could get matching funds up to $1.8 million in contributions for the primary and $2.7 million in the general. In Ohio the caps for matching fund would be $6.9 million and $10.35 million. This additional pool would be available for those candidates who are facing a candidate with deep pockets or heavy contributors.

Candidates would be forbidden to co-ordinate fundraising with their political party.

Additional provisions call for a 20% discount for advertising time, at the lowest ad time rate, for broadcast ads. Senate candidates would receive a $100,000 media voucher per district while Congressional candidates would receive a single $100,000 voucher. The candidates could sell their vouchers to the national party for cash. Leadership PACs would be limited to the $100 contribution cap per donor per year.

The bill would not be able to prevent the creation of millions of dollars worth of attack ads by third parties, like all those 501c groups, but it might help less-affluent candidates run. It is not an exaggeration that a Congressperson starts raising funds for the next election before he/she is even sworn in. John Boehner did not attend the January memorial for the victims of the Tucson shooting because he had to attend a major fund raising event for the Republican Party. It also will not prevent candidates from running and dropping out of the public funding source, as Barack Obama did in 2008. The best thing it can do is make potential candidates less hesitant about the process. Many excellent people balk at the prospect of selling their souls for a campaign contribution. This bill could give them options they don’t currently have.